- (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 31.5.2010, by which an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act'), seeking leave to defend the petition filed by the landlord under Section 13B of the Act, was dismissed.
(2.) In brief, the landlord/Respondent filed an eviction petition against the tenants/Petitioners under Section 13-B of the Act, in respect of a shop measuring 11 x 20' forming part of property No. 560, opposite Gurudwara Shri Guru Hargobind Sahib, Raikot Road, Mullanpur Dakha, Ludhiana, alleging therein that the shop (demised premises) was devolved upon him and his brothers upon the death of their father Kartar Singh on 31.8.1994 on the basis of a registered Will dated 01.10.1980 and as such, he along-with his brothers is the owner of the demised premises for the last more than 14 years. The landlord migrated to Canada in July, 1995 and is having a passport bearing No. WB- 742641 and is a Non-Resident Indian. The landlord had let out the demised premises to the tenants on 20.7.1995 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/- for running electronic business. The tenants were separately liable to pay house tax @ 15% per annum and the electricity charges. It was alleged that the landlord wanted to open a shop of cloth merchant along-with his wife Smt. Malkiat Kaur and two sons, namely Manjinder Singh and Mandeep Singh in which his younger brother Baljinder Singh was also to join. The adjoining shop of the demised premises is with one Malkiat Singh, who assured him to vacate it within a period of 5/6 months or as soon as he finds a suitable accommodation. Thus, a case of bona fide necessity was set up. According to the zimni orders available on record, the eviction petition was filed on 03.6.2009, in which the following order was passed. Present: Counsel for the Petitioner Rent petition received by entrustment. It be registered. Notice of the petition be issued to the Respondents for 18.7.2009. On 18.7.2009, following order was passed ;-Present: Counsel for the Petitioner. Summons received back with the report of unserved. So, Respondent be summoned through munadi for 07.8.2009. On 7.8.2009, the following order was passed: Present: Counsel for the Petitioner. On last date, summon received back with the report of refusal and munadi was issued against the Respondents. But inadvertently, in the zimni orders, it was written as summon received back unserved, so, this order is rectified to the extent may be read as summons received back with refusal. Today both the Respondents appeared through Sh. Parupkar Singh, Advocate, and filed power of attorney. Counsel for the Respondent made a request that he wants to file an application. Case is fixed for 22.8.2009.
(3.) Admittedly, an application under Section 18A of the Act seeking 'leave to defend' was filed on 21.8.2009 within a period of 15 days from the date of appearance.;